No one knows for sure how many people would come to live in a rich country like Britain if border controls were abolished. But in many poor parts of the world, in Africa in particular, there has been rapid urbanisation without industrialisation or economic growth or job creation. That has created a large surplus of urban labour well connected enough to know about the possibilities of life in the west and with a miserable enough life to want to get there. Who could say confidently that 5 million or 10 million people would not turn up in the space of a couple of years, especially to a country with the global connections that Britain already has?
The American academic Dani Rodrik plays a game with his economics students, asking them whether they would rather be poor in a rich country or rich in a poor country (where rich and poor refer to the top and bottom 10% of a country's income distribution). Most of them opt for being rich in a poor country. But they are wrong, at least if you just look at incomes. The poor in a rich country are, in fact, three times richer than the rich in a poor country, defined as that top 10% and not just the tiny number of the super-rich. That means our economic fortunes are primarily determined by what country we are born in and not by our position on the income scale. Being born in a country such as Britain, or being able to get here from a poor country, means winning the lottery of life.
It is hardly surprising that so many people are battering on our door to be allowed in. But allowing them in, at least in large numbers, not only creates conflict with poorer people in rich countries but slows down the development of poor countries.
A few countries, such as the Philippines, have become part- dependent on exporting people to rich countries and benefit in many ways from the process. But they are the exception. Most poor countries are actively hostile to permanent emigration. And it is hardly surprising. Desperately poor countries cannot afford to lose their most ambitious and expensively educated people. Phil Woolas, Labour's former immigration minister, recalls a meeting with the Sierra Leone foreign minister in 2008 in which she said: "Your country has just given me 150m to invest in infrastructure, and I am very grateful for that, but the trouble is that 90% of our graduates are in the US or Europe. Can you do anything about that for me?"
Emigration from poor to rich countries is obviously an economic benefit to the individuals and their families a doctor from Ivory Coast will earn six times more in France, and a Chinese junior lecturer can earn five times more in Australia. And the cost of "brain drain" from poor countries is partly mitigated by the remittances sent home. Annual global remittances are about $160bn more than twice foreign aid flows and a big chunk of GDP in some countries.
But just as rich countries can become over-dependent on immigration, which then reduces the incentive to improve the training or work ethic of hard-to-employ native citizens, so poorer countries can become over-dependent on emigration, which provides a flow of remittance money but slows the "take-off" to a more productive economy.
There is a particular concern over the importing of skilled health staff by rich countries. Malawi, for example, has lost more than half of its nursing staff to emigration over recent years, leaving just 336 nurses to serve a population of 12 million. Rates of perinatal mortality doubled from 1992 to 2000, a rise that is in part attributed to falling standards of medical care. Excluding Nigeria and South Africa, the average country in sub-Saharan Africa had 6.2 doctors per 100,000 of population in 2004. This compares with 166 in the UK, yet about 31% of doctors practising in the UK come from overseas, many from developing countries.
There is nothing morally objectionable about Britain refusing entry to skilled people from poor countries, or insisting that students or temporary workers from such countries return home after their visas expire. Indeed, if people return to their country of origin after a few years in a rich country it may produce the best outcome of all, a remittance flow followed by the return of a more skilled and worldly citizen eager for change. But this requires a reliable and well-funded immigration bureaucracy in Britain that commands public confidence something that the UK Border Agency can only aspire to at present.
Rich countries should be saying: we will help you to grow faster and to hold on to your best people through appropriate trade and aid policies; we will also agree not to lure away your most skilled people, so long as you agree to take back your illegal immigrants (which many countries don't). The coalition government's combination of a lower immigration target and its exemption of the aid programme from cuts is an expression of this idea.
Another way in which a mutually beneficial "stay at home" policy might operate is by professional and academic bodies in rich countries encouraging more contact with counterparts in poor ones. Academic and professional exchanges and other forms of networking can help to reduce the isolation that many professionals in poor countries feel.
An asylum system that is too open can also have the unintended consequence of encouraging the most reform-minded people in semi-authoritarian countries to quit rather than stay and fight for change. When the UN Refugee Convention was established in 1951, the Soviet gulag was a reality and the Nazi genocide a recent memory. The convention currently states that anyone is entitled to asylum if they are being persecuted on grounds of "race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion". As Charles Clarke, the former Labour home secretary, has observed: "These are wide-ranging categories which, depending on your definition of persecution, probably cover hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people living in a world where international communications means that more and more people are aware of their 'rights' and seek to take them up." And human rights case law is gradually widening the definitions.
But many of the largest groups, such as Somalis, applying to enter Britain and other rich countries as refugees are not facing individual persecution but rather are caught up in regional conflicts or civil wars or even natural disasters. They have usually been granted "exceptional leave to remain" or what is now called "humanitarian protection". There is no reason why the leave to remain should be permanent. Civil wars and natural disasters come to an end and countries need rebuilding. Rich countries should try to provide shelter from the storm for people badly affected but then ensure they return to help that rebuilding. As it is, refugees are often dumped in the poor parts of rich western cities where they sometimes live segregated and unhappy lives and can become a long-term welfare burden.
I would guess that 95% of British people think policy should give priority to the interests of national citizens before outsiders should the two conflict, but that does not mean you cannot be an internationalist or think it's a valuable part of our tradition to give a haven to refugees.
A new progressive "stay at home" contract can still appeal to altruistic and charitable instincts in the west, but would work with, and not against, the majority interest in both rich and poor countries. Attracting so many of the world's brightest and best into cities such as London seems an oddly lopsided way of arranging global affairs. Surely it would be in the longer-term interests of rich countries and poor to spread development more evenly.
The bigger point here is the most basic insight of welfare economics. Just as the marginal extra pound is worth more to a poor person than to a rich person, so the educated and ambitious person is worth more to a poor country that has few of them than to a rich country that already has many.
Indeed, mass emigration from poor countries creates a kind of development distortion, the human equivalent of global trade and fiscal imbalances: the best-educated people leave countries that badly need them for rich countries that can certainly benefit from their arrival, but do not need them in any proper sense. Some lucky people end up speeding up the development process for themselves and their families while helping to slow it down for everyone else back home.
What's so idealistic about that?
David Goodhart's The British Dream is published on 1 April by Atlantic.